A study shows a frighteninlgy high risk of STDs in today's world

wayword

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
1,478
Reaction score
21
Location
BFE

Docs

Banned
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
3,578
Reaction score
56
Location
Kingston, Can-a-duh
I'm white, therefore I have a less risk of an STD then a black person, irregardless of who I bang? I'm sure I could find a dirty white girl pretty easily, that'd screw your statistic up.

If a white guy bangs a girl infected with a STD, and the black guy also bangs the same girl, then the odds are even, it's just chance and cycles that dictates the possibility of infection.

crab101 = Dummy. -_-
 

Docs

Banned
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
3,578
Reaction score
56
Location
Kingston, Can-a-duh
Us whites have a less risk of getting it,because most of us whites bang white girls who dont have as high as stds as blackgirls.
But there's no basis for saying that, you dont' know the percentage of black infected to white infected, you don't know the population, and sure as hell dont' know the density of these girls across the country.

Given that you don't know those numbers, and the fact that STDs exist in whites and blacks anyways, you could pick one and life would suck.

Trust me, I live in White-Majority areas, and it's still bad.
 

wayword

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
1,478
Reaction score
21
Location
BFE
Docs said:
I'm white, therefore I have a less risk of an STD then a black person, irregardless of who I bang? I'm sure I could find a dirty white girl pretty easily, that'd screw your statistic up.
Lol, do you even understand statistics? Yes, if you have lower stats, you have lower risk, but are not risk-FREE.

That does not "screw my statistic up," you dumfvck - that is EXACTLY what the STATISTIC MEANS. Krist...how do you guys even understand batting averages or other sports stats?
 

Skilla_Staz

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
2,221
Reaction score
10
Age
36
Location
Omaha, Nebraska
My town has the highest rate of gonorrhea in the nation I believe...

Sweet huh?
 

Bible_Belt

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
17,104
Reaction score
5,735
Age
48
Location
midwestern cow field 40
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-27-hpv-prevalence_x.htm

1 in 4 U.S. women infected with HPV

2/27/2007
By Lindsey Tanner, Associated Press

CHICAGO — One in four U.S. women ages 14 to 59 is infected with the sexually transmitted virus that in some forms can cause cervical cancer, according to the first broad national estimate.

The figure is mostly in line with previous assessments. The highest prevalence — nearly 45% — was found in young women within the age range recommended for a new virus-fighting vaccine, according to a report from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Researchers have estimated that 20 million Americans have some form of HPV. The study concluded that 26.8% of U.S. women are infected, a figure that is comparable to earlier estimates using smaller groups.

"We expected the prevalence of any HPV infection would be high and that's what we found," said CDC researcher Dr. Eileen Dunne, the study's lead author.

Just 3.4% of the women studied had infections with one of the four HPV strains that the new vaccine protects against. But that doesn't mean the vaccine should be written off, said Dr. Yvonne Collins, an assistant professor of gynecologic cancer at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

For one thing, Collins said, that relatively small percentage corresponds with a lot of women — about 3 million, according to the report. And it does not include those with past infections that have cleared up.

The number of women with HPV strains targeted by the vaccine was lower than in some previous, less comprehensive estimates. And the overall HPV prevalence among the youngest women studied, 14- to-24-year-olds, was substantially higher than in previous estimates, 7.5 million versus 4.6 million.

Dunne attributed those variations to different study populations and different HPV detection methods. She said the results should not be interpreted to mean infection prevalence has changed in recent years.

The new nationally representative report is based on vaginal swab specimens from 1,921 women tested in 2003-04.

The report appears in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.

There are dozens of strains of HPV. Low-risk forms can cause genital warts and non-cancerous changes in cells in the cervix, and often clear without treatment. Several high-risk forms have been linked with cervical cancer.

Dunne said HPV prevalence is thought to be high in men as well, but none were studied.

An estimated 11,150 U.S. women will be diagnosed this year with cervical cancer, and about 3,670 will die from it. Numbers are much higher worldwide, especially in developing countries where Pap tests to detect cervical cancer are not routine.

The new vaccine, Merck's Gardasil, was approved last June for girls and women aged 9 to 26. It protects against two HPV strains believed responsible for about 70% of cervical cancer cases, and two other strains that cause 90% of genital wart cases.

Other vaccines are in the works to protect against other HPV strains, Collins said.

Women aged 20 to 24 had the highest overall HPV prevalence in the study, 44.8%. Prevalence increased each year from ages 14 to 24, then dropped off gradually, confirming that young, sexually active women face the greatest risk of infection.

The study underscores the need for young women to get vaccinated, and to get routine Pap tests, said Dr. Howard Jones, a gynecologic cancer specialist at Vanderbilt University.

Dr. Richard Haupt, medical affairs director in Merck's vaccine division, said the study "reinforces the idea that Gardasil would have great benefit" for young women.
 

ryannath

Master Don Juan
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
716
Reaction score
3
If a guy catches HPV and even gets some warts and he has the warts removed, he still has HPV. I know that. But, if a guy catches HPV can he get the shot and then the HPV will go away, or is the shot just to PREVENT HPV?
 

Docs

Banned
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
3,578
Reaction score
56
Location
Kingston, Can-a-duh
If a guy catches HPV and even gets some warts and he has the warts removed, he still has HPV. I know that. But, if a guy catches HPV can he get the shot and then the HPV will go away, or is the shot just to PREVENT HPV?
Do you know the defination of a vaccine....?
 

CCKazi007

Banned
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
298
Reaction score
2
Bible_Belt said:
HPV is a virus. Once you have it, there is no getting rid of it, although the symptoms can be treated.
Check your facts dude HPV is part of a variety of viruses that range from warts to cancer causing ones. You can burn off some warts usining liquid. A lot of kids get those water warts, I did and I used the liquid to burn it off. Do I still have it...? NO I don't so that proves that you're wrong. Some types of viruses like HIV and herpies will stay in your system.
 

John_Galt

Banned
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
341
Reaction score
0
Shiftkey said:
That's part of the problem. It would be stupid to assume something an anonimous poster wrote about online to be gospel. Especially on a forum with trolls that like to make new aliases like they change their clothes, and coming from a poster who registered last month. But if this is a real study I still have problems with the fact that you didn't give a link. I don't know the details of the study; Where was the sample taken? How recently was it done? Who conducted it? How big is the sample? Then there's other glaring problems with the study information you gave us; What STDs is it talking about? Different STDs have greatly differing rates of contraction, so it's useless data if it lumps every STD together. How did you get your numbers for more than one girl? Then you make some really bad generalizations and conditions; These numbers are the same in college? How do you know? There's 100% chance you get an STD if this and this and this? But there isn't really? But it's close enough??

This thread is lame. You should've just said "STDs are bad, wear a condom" because that's all your "study" amounts to.
Spot on. I'm a man of science and people think scientists are like gods among men and we should just take their words for it. I'm not saying studies are wrong,bad or false. Most likely the information is 100% correct.

A. 99.99999% of the time, you'll hear about a study from media/government/lobbygroup/religiousorganizations/etc. You rarely ever hear a scientists talk about their own study. Media hype things, and take things out of context.

B. No study can be 100% simulated. Things have to be assumed. When you hear about these studies, you rarely ever hear about the assumptions. Take the unemployment rate. Two people could take the same data and conclude two different unemployment rates by how they DEFINE and ASSUME things. Not that the information they presented is wrong. It's 100% correct, but it's only relevant to the assumptions. That's why there are so many different studies that say the complete opposite. IE: Eggs are good for you. Eggs are bad for you.

C. Data ranges. I find this stuff used more by politicians and very manipulative groups. They'll take short data ranges that illustrate the outcome they want. Anyone what follows electrical stuff. If you measure an AC signal on a short range, the outcome could look DC.

D. And there's a bias. No scientist is unbias. This fits in with assumptions. If you have a belief about the result of a study before you do it, you're much more likely to get the outcome you want because you'll just end up (for the most part subconsciously) making assumptions that'll make it come out that way, ignore things, looking at it from a very narrow view point, etc.


The above studies results are probably 100% correct(assuming the poster posted the exact facts), but the conclusion may or may not be fair since we don't know the deep down assumptions
 
Top